Hair Relaxer Lawsuit: Updates and Settlements (February 2025)

The upcoming court proceeding for the Hair Relaxer MDL 3060, scheduled for October 10, 2024, will likely address several critical issues in the ongoing litigation. This MDL consolidates thousands of cases where plaintiffs allege that the use of certain hair relaxer products has led to severe health issues, including uterine cancer.

Based on recent developments, the proceeding may involve ongoing discovery disputes, such as the adequacy of Plaintiff Fact Sheets (PFS) and motions regarding incomplete submissions. Additionally, the court may tackle broader issues surrounding the defendants' disclosures and the progression of the bellwether trial process, which will help determine the outcomes of the consolidated cases.

The discovery phase has been particularly contentious, with claims that defendants delay the process by requesting additional information after initial submissions. A special master has been appointed to oversee electronic discovery, and the ongoing work in this area could be a focal point during the proceeding.

The order in the case In re Hair Relaxer Mktg. Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig. from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 22, 2024, addresses a motion filed by the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel (PLC). The PLC sought to establish protocols for standard benefit fees and expenses in this multidistrict litigation (MDL 3060), which consolidates various lawsuits related to hair relaxer products alleged to cause cancer and other injuries.

1. Background of the MDL: The litigation was centralized to manage numerous lawsuits efficiently, reducing the risk of duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings. The plaintiffs allege that hair relaxer products caused them significant harm, and the MDL's complexity includes over 8,400 cases.
2. Motion by PLC: The PLC moved to establish a common benefit fund to manage fees and expenses that arise from work benefitting all plaintiffs in the MDL. This fund is to be supported by assessments (or "holdbacks") from settlements or judgments in related cases.
3. Opposition by Keller Postman LLC: Keller Postman LLC, representing individual plaintiffs, opposed the motion, particularly objecting to the proposed 11% holdback (8% for attorney's fees and 3% for expenses). They argued this was excessive and premature.
4. Court's Decision: The court granted the PLC's motion in part and denied it in part. While the court acknowledged the need for a common benefit fund, it limited the application of assessments. The court ruled it did not have jurisdiction to impose assessments on cases not before it, such as those in state courts or those settled before filing in any court.
5. Legal Basis: The court discussed the legal limits of its authority, particularly concerning the common benefit doctrine, its inherent managerial powers, and contract law. The court emphasized that its jurisdiction is confined to cases within the MDL and cannot extend to cases or recoveries outside this federal litigation.
6. Assessment Justification: The court upheld the 11% assessment as reasonable based on typical MDL case factors, such as the complexity of the litigation and the substantial work required. However, it noted that excessive assessments could be refunded if found to be unreasonable later.

The PLC's partly successful motion allowed for the establishment of a common benefit fund with a specified assessment. However, the court restricted the application of these assessments to cases within its jurisdiction, emphasizing that it cannot impose fees on recoveries outside the MDL. The PLC was directed to submit a revised order reflecting the court's decision.

L'Oreal USA has argued that personal jurisdiction has not been established over L'Oreal, SA, and this entity should not be forced to comply with discovery requests. L'Oreal is far and away the biggest defendant in hair relaxer litigation. In fact, L'Oreal is a named defendant in over 70% of pending hair relaxer lawsuits. Lawyers will continue to wage war with L'Oreal, and we believe the Court will ultimately force this defendant to comply.

The hair relaxer and straightener cases have been consolidated into MDL 3060, a Multidistrict Litigation officially titled "In Re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation." This multidistrict litigation is being handled in the Northern District of Illinois, overseen by Judge Mary Rowland​.

As of August 2024, the multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 3060, which consolidates cases involving hair relaxer products allegedly linked to cancer, continues to progress with several key developments:

Case Filings: The MDL has seen fluctuations in cases, with a current total of 8,192 active cases as of August 2024, up from 8,170 in June 2024​.

Discovery Phase: The litigation is in a crucial discovery phase. Parties are negotiating the scope of electronic discovery, which involves the defendants providing relevant documents and data. This process has been marked by disputes over the extent and duration of searches, with plaintiffs typically seeking more comprehensive discovery while defendants aim to limit the scope​.

Special Master Appointment: There have been ongoing discussions about appointing a Special Master to oversee electronic discovery issues. Both parties submitted candidates, with the defendants proposing a cap on the Special Master's fees, which plaintiffs opposed, arguing it would limit the efficiency of the discovery process.​

Defendant Responses: Several defendants, including Revlon, have sought dismissals of certain lawsuits, citing procedural issues such as plaintiffs' failure to file claims timely within the context of Revlon's bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, motions for sanctions have been filed against some defendants for inadequate discovery responses.

According to the court's docket, a significant court proceeding will be held on August 29, 2024. This hearing is expected to address several critical procedural and substantive issues related to the ongoing litigation.

Only twenty-three chemical hair straightener lawsuits have been filed in the past thirty days. There are now 8,180 individual lawsuits centralized in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Keep in mind there are hundreds of lawsuits now pending in both Cook County (Illinois state court) and Fulton County (Georgia state court)

As previously discussed, the criteria for cases filed in state court tend to be more liberal. For instance, several lawyers are filing hair relaxer lawsuits wherein the woman alleges the chemical hair products caused uterine fibroids, resulting in a hysterectomy.

A Georgia woman's claim that L'Oreal failed to warn consumers of dangers associated with toxic chemicals in chemical hair relaxers has been allowed to proceed. The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled against L'Oréal's argument that Georgia's Statute of Repose and Federal preemption law would force the Court to dismiss this lawsuit.

The Georgia trial court initially ruled the lawsuit filed by Kiara Burroughs was not preempted by Federal law and was sufficiently plead to survive a motion to dismiss. Ms. Burroughs has claimed that she developed uterine fibroids as a result of using chemical hair relaxers. 

Keep in mind there are active hair relaxer lawsuit dockets in Georgia State Court and Illinois State Court (Cook County). It is not unusual for lawyers to file in State Court to hedge their risks against adverse rulings in the MDL. 

Further, some hair relaxer lawyers are filing fibroid claims resulting in a hysterectomy in State Court. The plaintiff's leadership ceased accepting fibroid cases in the MDL last year. We believe hysterectomy claims during a woman's childbearing years have significant value. Thus, we are pursuing fibroid resulting in hysterectomy claims in Cook County, Illinois.

According to a prior Case Management Order, all plaintiffs are required to submit a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) within a certain amount of time. The information disclosed on these sheets allows the defendants to organize the cases and respond more efficiently to each lawsuit.

Defendants are required to send a PFS Warning Letter to any plaintiffs whose information is incomplete or missing. The plaintiff then has 30 days to fix any disclosure problems and resubmit their PFS.

Defendants have submitted a list of 65 plaintiffs who provided completely blank Fact Sheets and several others who have not provided complete information. It appears some of the defendants' complaints are justified, while others may involve minor problems.

If some plaintiffs are trying to join the MDL without providing the necessary information and stalling for more time by submitting a blank PFS, the defendants have a valid argument. The law firms representing these few plaintiffs need to comply with the MDL rules and stop delaying the legal process for those who have complied.

At the same time, some plaintiff's counsel complained that after they had provided the additional information requested, the defendants had sent an additional warning letter alleging new deficiencies. This jockeying may be related to the upcoming determination of which cases may be chosen for the bellwether trial pool.

It is not uncommon for the scientific criteria to tighten during the pendency of multidistrict litigation. The plaintiff's steering committee recently determined that uterine fibroids do not meet the criteria for inclusion. 

However, many plaintiff lawyers are pursuing claims involving uterine fibroids leading to a hysterectomy in state court. We are pursuing uterine fibroid hysterectomy claims in Illinois state court (Cook County) with local counsel. 

The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice (and with leave of the court) on behalf of all women who have not been diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, or ovarian cancer. 

This motion indicates that many of these lawsuits were filed before there was a clear direction in the hair relaxer lawsuit MDL regarding which cancers and injuries would be the focus of this litigation. Further, the plaintiffs allege that many lawsuits were filed rushedly to avoid the statute of limitations issues. 

Finally, the plaintiffs contend that many of these women will inevitably be diagnosed with uterine, ovarian, or endometrial cancer in the future. A dismissal without prejudice allows these women to sue if and when they receive such a diagnosis. The Court has essentially left the door open for these women. 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been considering whether to propose a ban prohibiting hair straightening product manufacturers from using formaldehyde in their products. The deadline for imposing this ban has passed, and the FDA has done nothing. 

This is disappointing since formaldehyde has been previously linked to cancer in many products and many consumer groups, including Black women. So far, the FDA has not explained why the deadline is missing.

In spite of the Defendants' objections (see the May 1st entry below), Maura Grossman, a professor at the University of Waterloo, has been named the ESI Special Master. Professor Grossman holds several degrees, including a Law degree from Georgetown University, Ph.D. and M.A. degrees from Adelphi University, and a Bachelor's degree from Brown University. 

Her role in this litigation is to help address the complex electronic discovery matters expected to arise. She will attempt to navigate through the numerous discovery disputes sure to arise.

The plaintiffs proposed naming Professor Maura Grossman as a special master in this MDL. Defendants object because Professor Grossman recently worked with them on a different litigation matter. 

They argue she ended her work on that litigation early in order to be considered for the special master position in this MDL. Defendants claim the professor cannot meet the necessary loyalty standards and overcome potential conflicts of interest.

At LLN, we assume the defendants did not care for the professor's opinions in the other case, so they do not want her involved in this litigation. Instead, they want the court to appoint Judge Paul Grimm as special master. Judge Grimm will likely do an excellent job if he is appointed.

The MDL grew by 81 new cases in April, bringing the total number of pending personal injury claims to 8,468. If you are considering a hair relaxer lawsuit, talk to the team at Lawsuit Legal News to learn more.

Some injured plaintiffs have requested the right to dismiss or amend their lawsuits without prejudice before the defendants file a response. The defendants object to this request, and both argue the other side obstructs standard MDL procedures. 

Our team supports any plaintiff who needs to amend or dismiss their lawsuit, especially if they cannot move forward due to their medical condition.

Another Special Master will be selected after both sides review the information to ensure there are no conflicts of interest. A Joint Status Report, due this week, should address search methods for pre-trial discovery. Unlike the start of the MDL, when thousands of cases were filed each month, only 53 new lawsuits joined the MDL in the past 30 days. The total number of pending lawsuits has reached 8,387.

In February, both sides of the hair relaxer multidistrict litigation (MDL) discussed the appointment of a Special Master. In complex mass tort and dangerous product cases, a judge may appoint someone with knowledge and expertise to act as a Special Master to help resolve technical issues fairly and quickly.

Plaintiffs object to a fee limitation. The proposed fee cap is $10,000 per month, which works out to approximately 13 hours of the judge's time charged at $750 per hour.

Also, only 117 new cases joined the MDL in February. The total number of federal lawsuits is now 8,334.

With the addition of 191 new lawsuits in January, there are now 8,217 pending claims in the hair relaxer cancer MDL. The number of new claims has dropped significantly since last summer, when 2,000 to 3,000 new cases per month were the norm.

The plaintiff's lawyers are focusing on three main types of cancer that should be the easiest to prove were caused by these products: uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, and ovarian cancer.

Court filings in the hair relaxer MDL have diminished considerably over the winter of 2023 and 2024, suggesting enrollment in the litigation has peaked. Although, the total number of cases has now exceeded 8,000.

Once an MDL is established, law firms and attorneys seek to inform potentially eligible claimants of their legal options. The subsequent growth rate of the MDL varies but typically reaches a natural plateau.

Plaintiffs have proposed a trial calendar for potential bellwether cases that extends into July for expert witness depositions. We don't expect any settlement offers until a trial date is pending, which could easily happen in 2025.

Judge Rowland has selected the first two bellwether trials in the hair relaxer MDL (Northern District of Illinois). The initial trial is slated for November 3, 2025, and the second will occur on February 2, 2026. 

The mere fact we now have trial dates places some pressure on the defendants. Bellwether trials tend to be weighed heavily by both the plaintiff and defense in the context of potentially resolving all claims within the MDL. Trying every case in a mass tort or class action lawsuit is impossible. 

A bellwether trial allows both sides to see how a jury will weigh the scientific evidence and sheds light on the potential damages a jury may award. We are intrigued by how a jury will evaluate evidence exposure to chemical hair relaxers can increase the risk of women developing uterine cancer.

From August 2023 to January 2024, the number of cases enrolled or pending in the hair relaxer MDL has increased from 300 to more than 8,100. Given the collective market share of the defendants in this litigation, we anticipate a drastic increase in court filings in the near future. 

The hair relaxer lawsuit MDL was established in February 2023 after various longtime users of popular haircare products developed severe medical conditions, including uterine cancer.

Judge Mary Rowland accepted a request to extend the scope of the discovery process to include the international sale of hair products. In November, the court addressed the complex jurisdictional questions in the context of companies and corporations of international origin or scale, ultimately dismissing two defendants from the MDL. 

This recent development, however, enables plaintiffs to investigate the products, marketing, and revenue of defendants still participating in the hair relaxer litigation.

Much attention has been focused on the recently published Black Women's Health Study wherein the health records of just under 50,000 black women were tracked from 1997 through 2019. Women who utilized chemical hair relaxers for at least fifteen (15) years at a rate of use of five (5) times a year had an increased risk of uterine cancer (i.e., endometrial cancer and uterine sarcoma).

There is a growing body of scientific literature illustrating a link between the use of chemical hair relaxers and uterine cancer. The scientific community is already well aware of the relationship between formaldehyde and cancer when absorbed through the skin.

Further, chemical hair straighteners contain a multitude of endocrine-disrupting chemicals that create an elevated risk of hormonal cancers, which include reproductive cancers like ovarian cancer and uterine cancer.

Some folks on the plaintiff's steering committee question whether they will tighten the scientific criteria and pursue uterine fibroid cases in the hair relaxer lawsuit. Many confounding factors can account for uterine fibroids. 

We believe that uterine fibroids resulting in a hysterectomy during a woman's childbearing years are claims with potentially significant settlement value. If the plaintiff's leadership eventually decides not to pursue these claims in the hair relaxer MDL, plaintiff lawyers will pursue such claims in state court. 

There is already talk about hair relaxer lawsuits filed in Illinois state court (Cook County) and Georgia state court (Fulton County).

As of December 2023, nearly 8,000 plaintiffs have enrolled in the sweeping chemical hair relaxer multidistrict litigation (MDL). The exponential increase in filings in the final quarter of 2023 is largely attributable both to Judge Rowland’s reaffirmation of plaintiffs’ Master Long Form Complaint and an FDA proposal to ban hair products that contain formaldehyde. 

Moreover, the prosecution’s Leadership Development Committee (LDC) has requested the establishment of a common benefit fund. In multidistrict litigation, courts commonly appoint some kind of leadership structure to oversee plaintiffs’ collective activities, filings, and strategy. Common benefit funds serve to reimburse attorneys who participate in these court-approved committees. 

The LDC seeks an 11% rate for the common benefit fund, whose resources will derive from the compensation awarded to all counsel representing individual clients in the MDL. Judge Rowland has yet to issue an official ruling on the request. 

We believe 11% is an absurd request and the Court should allow no more than a 7% common benefit fee which is still on the high side. A huge common benefit fee will simply incentivize lawyers to file their hair relaxer lawsuits in state court.

Judge Mary Rowland largely rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defense argued that federal law precluded the inclusion of various charges advanced under state statutes and that additional product liability claims were unviable. Judge Rowland’s ruling sustained the majority of plaintiffs’ charges at the pleading stage, including: 

• Design defect
• Failure to warn 
• Implied and Express warranty
• Unjust enrichment
• Punitive damages
• Derivative damages

However, the court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' fraud claims on the grounds that they failed to satisfy the stringent requirements under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, two international defendants were excused from the litigation for want of appropriate jurisdiction. There are approximately 8000 hair relaxer cancer lawsuits in the MDL.

We are noting an increase in television advertising related to the chemical hair straightener lawsuit. In turn, the general public is learning of the toxic chemicals, including endocrine disruptors in hair relaxer products. Exposure to endocrine disruptors will often lead to hormonal imbalances. Ovarian cancer and uterine cancer are both considered hormonal cancers.

Exposure to endocrine disruptors will often lead to hormonal imbalances. Ovarian cancer and uterine cancer are both considered hormonal cancers. A master complaint is necessary to spell out the scope of plaintiffs' common allegations of fact and law.

Judge Rowland held a status conference this past week where she provided the lawyers one week to enter a joint status report concerning the recent motion to dismiss filed by McBride (one of the smaller defendants), one of a handful of defendants in the hair straightener cancer lawsuits. Further, a bankruptcy attorney addressed the Court regarding the recent filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy by Revlon.

Judge Rowland approved a master complaint for the chemical hair straightener cancer lawsuit. The master complaint is nearly 400 pages long and thoroughly breaks down the plaintiffs' common allegations and legal claims against hair relaxer manufacturers. 

The Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits is one of the fastest-growing mass torts ever. In seven months, some 400 lawsuits have been filed into the MDL with common allegations that the use of chemical hair straighteners resulted in uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer.

Judge Mary Rowland made it easier for plaintiffs to file lawsuits against the likes of L'Oreal, Revlon, and Dabur International (the largest manufacturers of hair straighteners) by approving a short-form complaint to file directly into the MDL.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has consolidated all hair straightener cancer lawsuits filed in Federal Courts throughout the U.S. before Judge Mary M. Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois. Approximately sixty (60) lawsuits will be transferred into the Northern District of Illinois this month.

The Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) met today in Miami to discuss consolidating all lawsuits filed in Federal District Courts nationwide in the hair relaxer class action. We strongly believe the JPML will inevitably consolidate all lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois for convenience to all plaintiffs and defendants. Further, several hair straightener lawsuits are pending in the Northern District of Illinois. 

The recent JNCI study did not ask participants to identify which specific brands of chemical hair straightening or relaxer products they used or the chemicals listed on the product labels. In fact, many cosmetic companies don’t list every chemical in their products on the label. This makes it difficult for consumers to avoid possibly dangerous chemicals and products that remain on the market without warnings.

The study determined that the uterine cancer risks linked to chemical hair straightener use did not apply to people who used hair color, highlights, and perms. Despite the lack of a statistical link to uterine cancer, many other hair-processing products remain under heavy scrutiny. Past studies have found a potential link between these products and other cancers, including breast and ovarian cancer. 

For example, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) used data from the Sister Study to correlate 2,794 breast cancer diagnoses with chemical hair straightener use. That study found a 30 percent increase in the risk of developing breast cancer in women who straightened their hair every five to eight weeks or more often.

Makers of products like chemical hair straighteners owe consumers a legal duty of care. Manufacturers must provide safe products, free of unnecessary cancer risks, or at the very least, a warning about the product’s possible dangers. If a company fails to meet these standards, its customers can hold it responsible for the damages these products cause. 

Unfortunately, researchers don’t have a definitive answer about how hair straighteners may cause an increased risk of cancer. However, since studies have found a connection between these products and cancer patients, people diagnosed with cancer after using hair straightening products may seek compensation from manufacturers that create and sell dangerous items.

To prevail in a product liability lawsuit, you must prove a connection between the dangerous product you used and your medical condition. As you can imagine, this is not an easy task. An experienced product liability lawyer can link a dangerous consumer product to serious medical conditions to help meet this legal requirement. Once you prove this connection, you may recover compensation for your losses.

Although uterine cancer is a fairly rare cancer, the National Cancer Institute recently reported that Black women are more often diagnosed with uterine cancer and more than twice as likely to die from uterine cancer than women of other races. The results of the JNCI study confirm this frightening statistic.

In the JNCI study, Black women accounted for 7.4 percent of the study’s participants, but they constituted almost 60 percent of the women who used chemical hair straighteners. Another study linked Black women who regularly colored their hair with permanent hair dye to a 60 percent increase in breast cancer diagnoses compared to only an 8 percent increase in cancer risks in Caucasian women.

Because women of color are the primary consumer demographic for chemical hair straighteners and relaxers, manufacturers target them with advertising and marketing. They also know this target market is more likely to start using their products at a younger age, so they count on consumers using these chemicals throughout their lives. 

If an irresponsible manufacturer created and marketed a dangerous product that caused you injury, turn to our compassionate team of product liability lawyers for the compensation you need to help you recover.

Because every case is different, the LLN team would need to gather more information from you to calculate a potential compensation award. During a free consultation with one of our product liability lawyers, we will discuss your unique situation, what you have been through, and what the future may bring. We can investigate your claim, gather evidence, and create a legal strategy to recover the maximum amount possible.

We understand that uterine cancer, or any other type of cancer, presents an extremely stressful, painful, emotional, and life-changing experience. A cancer diagnosis also involves extensive medical treatments and overwhelming expenses. You may miss work to attend multiple doctor visits and face significant changes in your quality of life.

Most states allow a product liability claimant to recover compensation for economic and non-economic losses, known as legal damages. Monetary losses can include medical bills, lost income, and other expenses that you can document. Non-economic losses may consist of mental anguish, pain and suffering, loss of family relationships, and other items that are more difficult to calculate.

A dedicated, compassionate personal injury attorney can help you determine your legal damages and work with you to recover as much as possible so that you can move forward.